- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 15:23:32 +0200
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Victor Carbune <victor.carbune@gmail.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:15 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > On May 5, 2014, at 5:54 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer >>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I am prepared to change the rendering section / algorithm completely. >>>> >>>> But I am not prepared to change the Syntax any more. It's been too >>>> long in the making. >>>> >>>> That's really the core of my position. And it's not about CEA608, but >>>> about CEA708. >>>> For 608 I agree that we wouldn't need regions at all. >>> >>> Then it seems we are at an impasse. I am not interested in maintaining >>> regions as currently specified, and even less interested in big >>> changes to the rendering algorithm, unless they bring regions and >>> non-regions closer together in some meaningful way. >> >> Yes, the latter was exactly the plan: bring the rendering of regions >> and non-regions closer together. And I was under the impression that >> we made progress on that. > > Yep. And do it, ideally so that we > * don’t disturb the syntax > * don’t disturb the behavior of ‘normal cases’ (stuff that people have implemented and use in files today) > * clean up and regularize ‘edge cases’, undefined conditions, and so on I don't think such a conservative approach is going to result in a meaningful unification in rendering section, but I'll without judgement until I see the specifics. Also note that we've talked about moving the regions definition to a separate block. Without that regions can't ever work with a live WebVTT stream, which seems odd since that's the primary use case for roll-up captions. In other words, a breaking change to the syntax seems necessary regardless of what we've discussed in this thread. Philip
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 13:23:59 UTC